Automatic "Warriors" will choose by year's endClose to completing the advanced testing machine AK-12, which, together with another product of the concern "Kalashnikov" - the AK-15 and upgraded AEK-971 of the plant. Degtyareva can be used as a base of small arms in battle gear "Warrior". This was announced by the head of state corporation "Rostec" Sergei Chemezov.

According to him, after the inspection machines will pass on trial operation in troops. And only by its results in the Defense Ministry will decide which product to adopt the "hope that the decision will be made in the current year", - quotes "Interfax" the words Chemezov.

Recall that he "Warrior" has massively supplied to military units. According to the Commander of the Land Forces Oleg Salyukova, last year it received about 80 thousand. Soldiers and officers. But with a small arsenal of the "warrior" clarity is still no. Please recommend successfully passed state tests, and tested in the army sniper rifle SVD-M and the automatic grenade launcher AGS-30. As well as two versions of the upgraded machine gun "Pecheneg" - single and 6P69 6P41M for special forces.

According to the Central Research Institute of precision engineering composed 6P69 device includes a low-noise shooting and rails for the installation of optical sights and night. 6P41M version compared to the base "Pechenegs" also received the bar for the sights, and more - adjustable in length, change the position of the bipod.

As for the base machine for "Warrior", after much hesitation, customers seem to have stopped on the Izhevsk AK-12 caliber 5.45 mm. Among its advantages, experts called the new trigger mechanism that allows to recharge the machine with one hand.

But Kovrov AEK-971 has a balanced automation, reducing the knock of the weapon. But crucial to the dispute of the two machines can be not only their technical characteristics. In case certain economic factors intervene. Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov has said that the priority of the AK-12 mainly consists in its price characteristics. Here he compares favorably with AEK-971 they Degtyareva plant. Borisov previously mentioned, the new "Kalashnikov" agency cost just a quarter more expensive than the regular AK. A machine designed to Kovrov, due to the complexity of the design, deployment, its serial production and modernization of the plant will cost considerably more expensive.

AK-15 has never been inducted in Ratnik (it's a special gun, with at least three design choices that prohibit military use). Price replacement for AK74M is 300 USD, lower bid fr Izhmash has been 600/650 USD. A545 pricing is roughly at 700USD, they can be squeezed to 600 as well since they got the Pecheneg contract. Then there's the statement from Izhmash boss that the price for the AK-12 will be 1000 USD both for internal market and export. Anyway. Lots of half truths in there. More complex the A545? It has more or less same tolerances than AK74...while AK12 is far more tight and has many "blind spots" like the reversible doglegged charging handle on the rod that is grooved for lighter weight.

Zivo wrote:Trying to find out more about this version of the A545. Supposedly it is more standardized for Army acceptance, utilizing components from this version of the AK-12.

I really hope this image is real, because it is probably my favorite modification of the A545

It's a projection (you can see they couldn't photoshop out the rails for the retractable stock) could be done but would need a couple of real world alterations.

Like for instance the rear serration that keeps the bolt and bolt carrier in the receiver would be locked on a higher position to allow for the folding stock. The retractable rails taken out, the grip is not interesting and the muzzle brake is also not needed (the original and BARS help way more).

On the plus side, drop mag system is ok and folding stick is indeed preferable IMO.

Zivo wrote:Trying to find out more about this version of the A545. Supposedly it is more standardized for Army acceptance, utilizing components from this version of the AK-12.

I really hope this image is real, because it is probably my favorite modification of the A545

It's a projection (you can see they couldn't photoshop out the rails for the retractable stock) could be done but would need a couple of real world alterations.

Like for instance the rear serration that keeps the bolt and bolt carrier in the receiver would be locked on a higher position to allow for the folding stock. The retractable rails taken out, the grip is not interesting and the muzzle brake is also not needed (the original and BARS help way more).

On the plus side, drop mag system is ok and folding stick is indeed preferable IMO.

Oh well.

I wonder why the A545 didn't use standard AK parts when possible. I always thought it would have been more preferable.

Zivo wrote:Trying to find out more about this version of the A545. Supposedly it is more standardized for Army acceptance, utilizing components from this version of the AK-12.

I really hope this image is real, because it is probably my favorite modification of the A545

It's a projection (you can see they couldn't photoshop out the rails for the retractable stock) could be done but would need a couple of real world alterations.

Like for instance the rear serration that keeps the bolt and bolt carrier in the receiver would be locked on a higher position to allow for the folding stock. The retractable rails taken out, the grip is not interesting and the muzzle brake is also not needed (the original and BARS help way more).

On the plus side, drop mag system is ok and folding stick is indeed preferable IMO.

Oh well.

I wonder why the A545 didn't use standard AK parts when possible. I always thought it would have been more preferable.

Because the A545 is built by a different plant. ;-). IMO the basic A545 or a "normalized" version of it is really doable but thi rifle has so many nice features like the QD sling points, that frankly they should pick it up. Now I also know that the A545 has been messed up to look more classical.

The rear iron sight and horizontal grooves on the A545 make it look like an HK knockoff in my opinion.

I personally think the Ak12 just looks more practical and has less of a gimmick design.

The balanced recoil mechanism should be used on LMGs and GPMGS but not assault rifles... single shot is accurate enough without balanced recoil mechanism, but with close range full auto you want some bullet spread to increase hit probability.

GarryB wrote:The rear iron sight and horizontal grooves on the A545 make it look like an HK knockoff in my opinion.

I personally think the Ak12 just looks more practical and has less of a gimmick design.

The balanced recoil mechanism should be used on LMGs and GPMGS but not assault rifles... single shot is accurate enough without balanced recoil mechanism, but with close range full auto you want some bullet spread to increase hit probability.

From a design point of view the AK-12 has many small flaws (removable less solid iron sight) uses stampings that the AEK used 10 years ago and serrations that the AEK (and RK 95) used 20 years ago. The sight on AEK is more solid as it is one pieced and self protected from the virtue of being a monolithic piece with the upper reciever. It is an upper/lower gun pretty much as 90% of modern military rifles.

The AK-12 is really a hot mess when it comes to practicality.

But actually 90% of the rifle is how it shoots and how long. The rest isn't a problem.

That is like saying an M16 us crap because you can't remove the trigger...

The ability to change sides for the cocking handle is hugely important in my opinion and something the A545 lacks... and the ambidextrous controls are also a huge plus.

I have never been in real armed combat but when hunting I often switch shoulders depending upon the local conditions and situation... having all the controls on both sides makes things easier.

Wat?

The AK-12 has a removable non permanent Iron sight, it is mounted on a rail. The A545 exists in a run around configuration, it was rejected on the ground that...it wasn't submitted in due time (unlike the current AK-12, which wasn't submitted at all within the deadline). The ability to change sides is great, IF the mechanism is correctly sealed. Furthermore as said before the design solution for the AK-12's charging handle and gas piston is really iffy, with overheating on the weak parts of the new piston. Also the coking handle has been re-mediated in the A545 by proposing a hop open system on the receiver...like the Western guns. This system in the AK isn't satifactory yet. Instead of having to swap obturators for a ambidextrous rifle, they have tested a bolt release button on both sides.

Also the AEK was the first Soviet rifle to have ambi controls. Nothing new there. I understand you like the AK-12 for some reason, but you have to face it, the rifle is a hot mess and they need to get their act together, either go utilitarian like Cz either go sleek and take a page from SiG. So far the rifle uses old style stamping, and uneven quality in parts. Barrels are said to be outstanding, but I've seen the wear on furniture being abysmal for a new prod rifle trying to win a military contract for a top flight military.

The AK-12 has a removable non permanent Iron sight, it is mounted on a rail.

Well I would count that as a fault for a standard infantry rifle... it is just something they can lose... and why would you ever take it off?

For a special forces rifle that can be adapted to different calibres being able to change the iron sights could be useful for different calibres.

I understand you like the AK-12 for some reason, but you have to face it, the rifle is a hot mess and they need to get their act together,

I like it because it took the AK-74... which I also like by the way, and they went through all the problems and issues... real and otherwise, and addressed pretty much all of them and even added a few interesting extras like the ability to fire NATO standard rifle grenades.

It is the T-90AM of tanks, the Su-35S of Flankers... what is not to like...

The AEK seems rather different but for no obvious advantage other than it is different.

The main advantage it brings is a balanced recoil mechanism and that is only really important in full auto fire... which in my opinion should only be used at short range and at fleeting targets... where precision and tight groups make no sense... a spray improves hit probability.

If a balanced recoil mechanism was so critical then basing the AK12 on the AK-107 instead of the AK-74M is the obvious solution.

The AK-12 has a removable non permanent Iron sight, it is mounted on a rail.

Well I would count that as a fault for a standard infantry rifle... it is just something they can lose... and why would you ever take it off?

For a special forces rifle that can be adapted to different calibres being able to change the iron sights could be useful for different calibres.

It's not only the getting lost part, it's also getting loose. The moment that rifle starts losing zero because people will take the sight on and off for thorough cleaning, wear and stupidity will play a role.

I understand you like the AK-12 for some reason, but you have to face it, the rifle is a hot mess and they need to get their act together,

I like it because it took the AK-74... which I also like by the way, and they went through all the problems and issues... real and otherwise, and addressed pretty much all of them and even added a few interesting extras like the ability to fire NATO standard rifle grenades.

I'm not sure once again that I would agree, they disavowed the 74 stampings and went for a new thermo-formation like the AEK. This gives you the typical stampings that you can compare with the old AEK. They even went as far as to have a rear slot instead of an integral sheet for the receiver, and then they went back and used an integral sheet.

From the first point. They were so "retarded", that they picked up a different process for the first variant, then changed the process for the second variant, went back to classic stampings for the intermediate rifle and then fast forward with the thermo process for the last rifle.

Like crazy man.

It is the T-90AM of tanks, the Su-35S of Flankers... what is not to like...

The AEK seems rather different but for no obvious advantage other than it is different.

I'd say that it offers AK tractor tough process without needing to get worried about the BARS mechanism. It's a though piece done so there's no risk of detail breaks.

The main advantage it brings is a balanced recoil mechanism and that is only really important in full auto fire... which in my opinion should only be used at short range and at fleeting targets... where precision and tight groups make no sense... a spray improves hit probability.

The Bars allows you to have no worries going from single to full auto, the gun will behave very similarly and you'll have a linear kick from the rifle, if you'd need to get all funny on a pinch.

If a balanced recoil mechanism was so critical then basing the AK12 on the AK-107 instead of the AK-74M is the obvious solution.

Because the AL-7 BARS is less interesting, has more moving parts and more complexity than the AO-38. Simply put, the AK-BARS is the body of evidence that CK hasn't moved a cm from their rifle is fine mentality.

However as I said, all this is nothing if the AK-12 shoots fine and reliably for the strelok, so far it was that aspect that the AK-12 tried to play catch up.